Ted Rall Appears in Comments to Explain His Pointless Anti-SWATting Bill Cartoon
Ted Rall is in the comments of this post, where he tries to explain his recent cartoon opposing an anti-SWATting bill.
Commenter #21 is correct. This cartoon is conservative libertarian in orientation. Why do we need a new law here? Anyone who pulls such a boneheaded stunt is guilty of several crimes, including filing a false report and harassment. If anyone gets hurt, it’s reckless endangerment. If there are property damages, you can sue.
I thought conservatives opposed showboating, redundant, unnecessary laws?
I sort of figured the cartoon was rooted in cluelessness. Now it’s confirmed.
I have asked Rall to plumb the vast depths of his knowledge of California criminal law and provide me the Penal Code sections for the applicable statutes, the penalties that apply, and why those penalties are sufficient in his view. He can start by providing the California Penal Code section for the crime which he calls “reckless endangerment.”
This ought to be good.
P.S. Rall adds:
Also: the above characterization of my lawsuit is so willfully wrong as to be actionable.
I sued a guy for impersonating me online – and then, when I demanded that he quit, continuing to do so. It’s called identity theft, and every judge who has seen the case has said that my case is airtight. Sadly, the miscreant defendant has abused a screwed-up legal system by delaying the case for 14 years, denying me justice.
Patterico would sue anyone who did the same thing to him; so would anyone.
Well, I’m not much for suing folks, but I will make this observation. The post Rall calls “actionable” links this post, which reads as follows:
In a comment to this Winds of Change post, I learned something new about Ted Rall’s lawsuit against Danny Hellman. (Rall sued Hellman after Hellman sent a joke e-mail to some people, pretending to be Rall.)
Apparently, Rall claimed damages in part because Hellman’s e-mail “made [Rall] appear as a rude, petty, self-absorbed writer/cartoonist . . .”
I thought truth was a defense.
I mean, this is like Kirstie Alley suing her pants for making her butt look big.
Seems to me that Rall was indeed claiming damages from Hellman, in part, because Hellman “made [Rall] appear as a rude, petty, self-absorbed writer/cartoonist . . .”
. . . and?
So, is Rall gonna sue me now?
I immediately cave when people threaten frivolous lawsuits. Isn’t that right, folks?
Patterico (9c670f) — 5/17/2013 @ 7:29 amSpeaking of motives, I caught a little of the IRS testimony as I drove to work this morning. After reading off the criteria that had been inappropriately used to screen tax-exempt status applications, such as “tea party” “9/12” “patriot” “making america better” “constitution” “reduce government spending” etc, in response to questions, both the acting head and the guy representing the internal report, said they found “no evidence that the screening was partisan or political in nature”.
Isn’t that kind of like asking someone for their skin color, ethnicity, religion, etc. before slow-rolling their application for a mortgage, but then claiming you weren’t doing it out of prejudice, because you offered no specific opinion about what their answers were…you just wanted the information?
I mean, I was wishing I was there to ask myself: “Can you please re-read all the criteria applied, and give me a single logically consistent motivation for why *those* criteria were used as a screening method, and *those* questions were asked as part of the application delays, other than one which has “partisan” or “political” implications?
rtrski (336865) — 5/17/2013 @ 7:40 amI immediately cave when people threaten frivolous lawsuits. Isn’t that right, folks?
Yup, you sure do give all kind of f***s I’ve found.
nk (875f57) — 5/17/2013 @ 7:47 amSo you think we need a new law specific for Swatting? What would that look like and why is it needed?
Gun owner = stupid coward (665117) — 5/17/2013 @ 7:49 amIf Mr. Rall is still reading I hope he at least considers this: If nobody (or only one person sorta) “got” this particular cartoon, then he has a problem. To be effective, political cartoons have to be so devastatingly obviously brutally on-point that whether one agrees or disagrees with it there is no question what the intended message was, and what the cartoonist hoped to convey. This cartoon clearly did not pass that test or Mr. Rall would not need to explain it.
elissa (2fda5f) — 5/17/2013 @ 8:04 amRall can’t sue you for stating your opinion. So which part of your characterization of Rall’s lawsuit does he claim is wrong?
aunursa (7014a8) — 5/17/2013 @ 8:27 amOne way you know that a cartoon is a failure is if the cartoonist needs to explain it.
aunursa (7014a8) — 5/17/2013 @ 8:31 amI wonder if Mr. Rall has ever heard of Barbra Streisand?
jim2 (604c42) — 5/17/2013 @ 8:46 amPatrick, we (including you) would be delighted if Rall were to sue you.
Just think: He can learn something about SLAPP laws to wash down all that SWATting law he doesn’t have.
Mitch (341ca0) — 5/17/2013 @ 8:50 amThis Ted Rall person reminds me of Ted Bundy.
Elephant Stone (65a34b) — 5/17/2013 @ 10:37 amAl Bundy, too !
Instead of passing an “anti-moron law,” the LA Times could just save the legislature some time by firing this Ted Rall person.
Elephant Stone (65a34b) — 5/17/2013 @ 10:42 amI noticed that, technically, Rall’s 1999 lawsuit against Danny Hellman remains on the docket in the trial court for the County of New York. Nothing appears to have occurred in the case since late 2002. Don’t New York state courts police their dockets for idle cases?
Hellman has explained the idleness this way in one or two interviews: (a) Rall’s lawyer took the case on contingency; (b) that lawyer tragically passed away in 2005 (and, I presume, had become unable to prosecute the case by late 2002); (c) no other lawyer has taken on the case.
I gather that all of the claims except Libel Per Se were already dismissed before the case went inactive.
Mitch (341ca0) — 5/17/2013 @ 10:58 amI believe the Media operates under a strict law of Conservation of Idiocy. If ted were fired, no doubt an even dumber version would crop up
Bill (1478ad) — 5/17/2013 @ 11:04 amSo, there is no general law against a false 9-11 call? (I imagine there are several specific ones, e.g. false fire report).
Why play whack-a-mole?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/17/2013 @ 11:33 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/17/2013 @ 11:50 am14.
yes there is a “law” (Cal Penal Code 653y) about inappropriate use of the 911 system. If you get caught SWATting someone the penalty is that you are given a written warning and educational materials about the 911 system (at the discretion of the law enforcement agency running the 911 center).
Note that this is not a misdemeanor or felony (crime) but instead an infraction (not a crime). Got that, it is technically illegal in that there is a law about it, but it is not a crime to do so.
max (131bc0) — 5/17/2013 @ 9:36 pmSO, perhaps there ought to be a law against malicious misuse, not just for swatting but for other misdirections.
On a side note, there really ought to be a way to impose meaningful penalties for misdemeanors. We used to have local jails but they’re all full with felons now. We need more choices than incarceration.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/18/2013 @ 12:59 amCan you say, “Impersonate Ted Rall Online Week“?!?!?
I knew you could…
…Or fewer people incarcerated for BS violations of twat laws (laws passed by twats being twats).
Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master and Gender Bïgǒt (c33438) — 5/18/2013 @ 1:27 am